So.....it wasn’t really Lyndon Johnson who was finally cornered into signing the Civil Rights Bill. Okay then, which republican (president) was it then? And if ya wish to get more recent, do tell me exactly what it was that Obama did to improve racial relationships? For that matter, what is it that Pelosi, Schumer, Cortez, Sharpton, Jackson, Waters, et al done to dramatically improve racial equality in their individual areas of responsibility whether it is where they live or where their district exists? Tell me a little bit about George Wallace if you will, or more recently in the news, Stacy Abrams. And how about that KKK! Still a bunch of dems in that organization and I can’t find a republican one. I’ll keep looking though. Note: It’s a given that there are definitely a group of so-called rhino republicans and also those who are moderate democrats who can be considered to go either way in any issue depending on who “favors” them the most when campaign time comes in. As far as insulting to anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge goes, the fact that they who only have modicum of knowledge but speak and write as though they are the know all and see all indicates and proves out that a little knowledge is worse than having no knowledge at all. They (the insulted ones) are the ones who are playing Russian Roulette, not I. I like to reason, then study, then reason some more before I write......or speak. After all, I could be as wrong as you are or you could be as right as I am.
That's not true. The Democrat Party has always been racist, and continues to be, while racism was never an integral part of the Republican Party. Today, Democrat racism is seen in the clear view that black people are wholly unable to do anything for themselves but require the largesse of a superior white benefactor for their very survival.
During slave times, most Southern Democrats felt that it was important to keep their slaves ignorant and dependent. In some areas, it was illegal to teach a slave to read. Even after Emancipation, Southern Democrats saw the need to keep blacks ignorant and dependent, and I don't see that this has changed much, except that Northern Democrats feel the same way, as evidenced by the vehemence in which Democrats will attack any black person who dares to think for him/herself.
I've been reading articles and watching videos on this topic. Back in the day, I considered it a flaw in myself that I couldn't join the anti-war protests I encountered, I felt left out and, more to the point, without principals. I give myself a little more credit now. I instinctively shied away from the irrationality and conformity of groupthink. At the time I didn't know why I did, but I did. A few kudoc to moi, I suppose.
Of all the conspiracy theories for which I don't have enough evidence, here's one I put together myself: Jesse Jackson's tenure as MLK's lieutenant wasn't greatly satisfying for him. Jackson hankered after power. He knew King was to be assassinated and when. After King was shot Jackson 'posed' himself for the media with MLK cradled in his arms, with Martin's blood staining his shirt up to his collar. And here's what else I noticed: in an video interview hours later, after Jackson had plenty of time to change clothes and freshen up - he still wears the same bloody shirt. Two more things lend credence to my scenario ( if you're paranoid enough ). Jackson accomplished nothing as leader of PUSH and the Rainbow Coalition except be famous as himself. Second, in an interview broadcast nationally, Jackson is talking when a studio light goes off with a pop. Jackson goes pale, eyes huge and crouches in his chair, looking frantically left and right. I takes him a while to calm down and resume the interview. Feeling a little guilty, are we, Jesse Jackson?
As someone who was involved, I didn't see it that way, but I was in on the planning stages of a couple of large protests, including the May Day 1971 Washington DC protests. Despite the thousands of people participating, most of whom didn't know what to expect, the event went off pretty much as we had planned. As I mentioned elsewhere, I didn't take part in protests that concentrated on demonizing or ridiculing returning soldiers. While I understood the motivations behind the tactic, I have never been one to believe that the ends necessarily justified the means. I also wasn't interested in what I saw as irrelevant protests, such as staging an antiwar protest in front of a post office. In any movement, there will be groupthink, I suppose, as in people who don't really understand what it's all about but want to take part in it anyhow. We are seeing that today with the masks, I believe. I suppose a movement needs these people as pawns, to show bulk. While I might walk across the street just to see what was going on, I was from a small town in the UP of Michigan, and I wasn't about to hitchhike a couple of thousand miles for something that I didn't have a handle on. I don't know if I had ever confirmed it, but I have heard that Martin Luther King had confided in people that he didn't trust Jesse Jackson, feeling that he was too ambitious. If that were documented, it would have probably been scrubbed by now, though.
Ken, thanks for your considered replies. I overgeneralized about group movements. I'm actually dissatisfied with myself that, at my age, I haven't settled into a more definite system of belief. I'm still learning and forming my worldview and it hurts at times. I'm thinking of leaving the Green Party. I disagree with them about almost everything except limiting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Their main attraction was that they weren't Democrat or Republican. There is no one for me to vote for or advocate. I'll repeat this short post from a few days ago: "I'm writing my own name in. I have multiple personality disorder and I really don't know what my alters will do but I could get as many as seven votes for president." That's still my plan.
Similarly, I flirted with the Libertarian Party once, but the areas of disagreement are too sharp. The Constitution Party more accurately expresses the ideal, as far as I am concerned, and I was once the contact person for the Constitution Party in Maine, but I may as well write my own name in as to vote for a Constitution Party candidate, unfortunately. Instead, I am not enrolled in any political party. When I vote for a candidate on the ballot, it is usually a Republican but there have been more Republicans who I wouldn't vote for than those who I would vote for. For example, I did not vote for George H.W. Bush and, while I did vote for George W. Bush for his first term, I did not vote to reelect him. I did not vote for McCain or Romney, and have never voted for Senator Susan Collins. Where there is an independent or 3rd-party candidate for these positions, I might vote for them, and otherwise, I leave the space blank or write someone in. I supported Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, and enthusiastically voted for Trump, although I thought he was a joke when he first began his campaign. Although I would consider anyone, regardless of political affiliations, the Democrats no longer allow anyone on the ballot who I could vote for. I hate Republicans but Democrats are far worse. The Republicans of Maine still let me into their Facebook group, although we have some arguments. I hate the idea that someone is supposed to vote for someone, like Susan Collins, just because she is registered as a Republican. If she wanted my vote, she could quit acting like a Democrat.
You are using fallacies to try to validate your personal opinions and beliefs of events. Fallacies are false logic, such as basing your theories on assumptions. Crowds are also people at a mall, and unless there's a bodacious sale somewhere, it is rather emotionless. Crowds are old people in assisted living homes in the dinning area. Crowds are people at concerts. Crowds are inside movie theaters and opera houses. Just because you do not like something or do not want to do something, trying to spin it into some form of logical argument or highly philosophical rhetoric is just not going to work. I could argue your herd immunity since there is no proof of immunity. If you know of proof of immunity, share it. If you have proof that masks do nothing, share it. If you have proof that the 6ft apart was simply a high school study, share it. If this were a debate, your opponent just won.
Syntax problems. Martin is using 'crowds' to mean people gathered for specific purpose such as protest. He is not talking about people in a mall. Masks:.https://www.bitchute.com/video/jOsT1UNHRaom/ fast forward to 3 mins. Immunity:
Sorry Rene but if this were a debate, I would personally ask you to prove that his “assumptions” were incorrect thereby creating a void in the conversation. And, as @Dwight Ward so kindly pointed out but I will write it a bit differently, you know exactly what Martin meant when he wrote “crowds” but whilst in a hurry to find fault, you actually embarrassed yourself.
Although Martin's video seems to refer to crowds as only people physically in a group in the beginning, and often shows physical crowds throughout, the narrative changes to psychological crowds and group think, about half way through. Martin specifically refers to BLM, which some might interpret as only protesters, but others might think of it as the movement in general. He then refers to the crowd as the medical system, and to group think in general, in the end. That's the way I read what he is saying anyway. And I don't disagree that group think exists. You could also think of internet forums as a crowds. The internet allows crowds to form initially of people with very different thoughts, but whose membership may morph eventually to include only those members that have the same ideas. A kind of group think emerges.
(this is the only sentence in this thread I have read recently, and it is the only one I am replying to, although it may be very related to other posts as well. A few minutes ago, without knowing of this post I am replying to, I found over ten medical studies on one webpage that prove the masks do something, so here is the link to "share it" . https://jdfor2020.com/2020/08/1981-...est-be-achieved-by-not-wearing-a-mask-at-all/
Demanding that your debate opponent prove a negative only works when people are dumb enough to accept that as an argument. If you want me to wear a mask, you should prove that they do work.